Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not yet. You progressive douches always maintain that your statist garbage won't result in loss of freedoms and worse...until after it happens.

Then you play dumb. "Oh wow, I didn't know that would happen! Someone fooled me!"

"We'll just have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill"

 

[koshergrl]

How so? How would your religious objection to selling to someone because they were gay differ from your religious objectiion to selling to someone because they were gay and getting married?

If your religious objection is the basis for you to ignore any law you wish, what would limit that objection to marriage alone? Couldn't you also object to someone's skin color? Or their creed? Or anything about them that offends your religious sensibilities?

It would be like blaming black people for 'state legilstion of religion' because you religiously object to interracial marriage. And thus, refuse to sell anything to them. Its not the black folk's fault YOU have baggage.

Nope. You're not even close. No church has ever been force to conduct a gay wedding. Businesses however, aren't churches. And if you choose not to treat your customer's fairly and equally, you're business is subject to fines. It was before gay marriage. It was after.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.

Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.

Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.

 

[mdk]

His claim that sex can only serve one purpose was debunked. And he ran.

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

 

[koshergrl]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

Federal Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990.

************************************************************

Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990

************************************************************

Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed before Employment Division v. Smith.


>>>>

What I should have said is that until Smith, religious exceptions were taken for granted.

Now they can't be had. At least..not by Christians.

I was going simplistic for the sake of skylar.

 

[koshergrl]

There was no argument which debunked that which does not exist. So that is false. And I've never ran from an argument, in 54 years... therefore it is an axiomatic certainty that I didn't run from one here.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

Sex serves one purpose, procreation. That such induces pleasure, and the nature of humanity is to seek pleasure, only highlights the essential nature of both procreation, and the discipline to not confuse the purpose of sex with the pleasure which comes in the process of it.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

 

[Skylar]

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

 

[koshergrl]

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant

You are a professed sexual deviant.

Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

I never said I was a church. Yet another completely irrelevant comment by you. This is tiresome.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

Federal Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990.

************************************************************

Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990

************************************************************

Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed before Employment Division v. Smith.


>>>>

Gee... 1964?

1964...

WHAT HAPPENED IN MID 1960s WHICH LEAD TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAWS?

HMM... Seems like black folks wanted to eat at the counter and sit in the front of the bus and drink at a water fountain not specifically designated for them.

But, that can't be it, because THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROMOTING DEVIANCY...

Surely something else must have happened in the mid-60s that provided for people to participate in public celebrations of perversion, debauchery and every form of hedonism... . At least for your premise to have any legitimacy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I never said I was a church. Yet another completely irrelevant comment by you. This is tiresome.

Such is the nature of evil. It seeks to conflate, deflect, obscure and confuse, until ya just get tired of it... at which time it declares itself the most popular and by virtue of that MORALLY SOUND!

It's a lie... a profound deceit, intentionally advanced as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

It's Evil.

 

[Skylar]

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world.

Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.

Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.

Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.

Only when you get off topic.

 

[Skylar]

Perhaps you can take a shot where Keyes so obviously failed:

If sex has only one purpose: procreation....then why do the infertile have sex? Why would those to old to bear chldren? How about those on birth control?

Again reader, the Professed Sexual Deviant

You are a professed sexual deviant.

Again... the professed sexual deviant, comes to ADVISE you, the reader, that such which is NOT true, as truth.

Do you see how a species of reasoning which seeks to misinform you, is harmful to you?

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

I never said I was a church. Yet another completely irrelevant comment by you. This is tiresome.

If you're not a church, then how is your comment about being 'forced' to attend a gay wedding relevant to this thread?

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

 

[mdk]

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

Its an axiomatic certainty that we're still laughing our asses off at your 'natural born' rout. Where you insisted that the dictionary defined natural born....until the dictionary contradicted you. And then you abandoned the dictionary, your entire argument and the topic.

Running as we laughed!

So you've never run....except for that time, right?

Oh, and then there's your argument that through observations of nature we can determine 'natural law' and thus 'god's law'. But when asked if predation of the weak, the old and the sick.....which happens all the time in nature....was natural law, and thus God's law?

And you ran! Abandoning natural law, abandoning God's law, and refusing to even discuss observations of nature.

So you've never run....except for those two times, right?

Oh, wait. In the very thread you pulled the above quote, there's the topic of marriage. Where it obviously has no more than one valid purpose, as demonstrated by all the infertile and childless couples married and allowed to be married. And when pressed......you abandoned the entire topic.

So you've never run....except for those three times, right?

Laughing......I don't think 'axiomatic' means what you think it means.

It certainly serves the purpose of procreation. But not ONLY that purpose. Those who can't procreate still have sex. Those who are too old still have sex. Those without partners masturbate. And couples who take birth control still have sex. They do so for pleasure. For bonding. For stress relief. For religious reasons. In fact, almost all sex is reproductively worthless. Meaning that these other purposes are engaged in almost every sexual act.

And each purpose is completely valid, rational and reasonable.

Your failure is so predictable: you keep assuming that the purpose that you prioritize is the ONLY possible purpose. And just ignore the litany of contradicts that demonstrate other purposes. As if by ignoring them, they somehow disappear.

...if only reality worked that way.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

This thread isn't about PA laws. It's about churches, seeing how you're not a church your comment doesn't make sense. Churches are not being forced to marry anyone.

 

[koshergrl]

Then why have you been posting about everything but that topic?

All of us agree that churches will not be forced to accommodate any wedding the church doesn't want to perform.

Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.

Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.

Only when you get off topic.

I'm not off topic.

You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...

 

[Skylar]

HAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROMOTING DEVIANCY...

The PA law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Supreme Court ruling.

Federal Public Accommodation laws - 1964.

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

Federal Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990.

************************************************************

Washington State Consumer Protection Act - 1960's

Employment Division v. Smith - 1990

State Public Accommodation laws existed before 1990

************************************************************

Timeline does not support your statement since PA laws were passed before Employment Division v. Smith.


>>>>

Gee... 1964?

1964...

WHAT HAPPENED IN MID 1960s WHICH LEAD TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAWS?

HMM... Seems like black folks wanted to eat at the counter and sit in the front of the bus and drink at a water fountain not specifically designated for them.

But, that can't be it, because THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PROMOTING DEVIANCY...

Why do you assume that PA laws could only apply to race? The States protected gender, creed, religion, sexual orientation, race, etc..

You keep making the same stupid mistake in virtually every argument you make. You pick a purpose, then insist that the purpose is the ONLY possible one that can exist.

As usual, you don't have the slighest clue what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, Kosher's standards don't actually apply to her. That goes without saying. She can babble about whatever she'd like. Florists, PA laws, fascists, whatever.

Its only the rest of us that are 'going off topic' if we address anything but the thread title.

Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.

Only when you get off topic.

I'm not off topic.

You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?

You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.

 

[koshergrl]

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

A whole post full of..nothing.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

This thread isn't about PA laws. It's about churches, seeing how you're not a church your comment doesn't make sense. Churches are not being forced to marry anyone.

#1...I'm not the one who brought PA laws into the convo.
#2 The thread title asks the question, should churches be forced to accommodate queer weddings.
#3...if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're not a church. The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

The Reader should know that the above contributor is advancing the specious notion that "You're entitled to exercise your religion, in your CHURCH, but no where else."

It's a lie; a profound deceit, intentionally advanced as a fraudulent means to influence the reader, who they count as being ignorant of American principle which informs you that such is, again... her feelings are a LIE!

 

[koshergrl]

Wow you sure like to hear yourself ramble.

The title of this thread is "Should churches be forced to accommodate gay weddings".

So get a grip. Come back to the real world

Did you just cut and paste my comment?

I hate copy cats.

Only when you get off topic.

I'm not off topic.

You sound like fake. He always accuses other people of the things he's doing. It's boring. I might put you on ignore too...

How would you being 'forced' to attend a wedding be relevance in a thread titled 'should churches be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings'?

You've already admitted you're not a church. So......explain it to us. And make sure you don't stray from the thread title.

You really don't have any concept of religious freedom, do you?

If you can force people to observe and attend rituals they find offensive, then you will have no problem forcing churches to host rituals the church finds offensive.

It's all about legislation of religion, and it's wrong.

 

[Skylar]

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

And by nothing you mean exploding your mate's assertions one by one.

You have every right to be as obtuse as you wish concerning PA laws but we and the courts are under no such obligation. You're more interested in propping up this false sense of victimization and using that as an excuse to ignore laws you don't like. The law applies to you as well, you would wise to remember that.

Nonsense. I don't abide by bad laws, and no law in the world will force me to renounce my faith or participate in sacrilege.

Two gay people getting married in no way makes you renounce your faith. You'll get over it.

Being forced to attend a homo marriage and provide materials celebrating it does, however. And the STATE has no authority to tell me otherwise.

This thread isn't about PA laws. It's about churches, seeing how you're not a church your comment doesn't make sense. Churches are not being forced to marry anyone.

#1...I'm not the one who brought PA laws into the convo.

Then you're promoting irrelevancy. Or at least what you claim is irrelevancy. As PA laws have zero to do with churches. Churches are explicitly exempt from them.

#2 The thread title asks the question, should churches be forced to accommodate queer weddings.

The subject of the thread is clearly churches. And you're not a church. Thus, any comment about what YOU might be forced to do is irrelevant to the topic. At least per the standards you've applied to us.

#3...if you can force people to attend religious ceremonies that they do not wish to attend, they you can force churches to host religious ceremonies they have no desire to host.

No you can't. PA laws exempt churches specifically. And you know this. So you're not only bringing up irrelevancies, you're lying to do it.

Name one church that has been forced to perform a gay wedding. You can't....as you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[koshergrl]

Click.

Done with the noise. Good grief.